4 ms·
Om my book “x doesn’t exist” demonstrations are absolutely worthless if they don’t as a minimum show at least one “closest” member of the training set. You cou
by boublepop 7y ago
Om my book “x doesn’t exist” demonstrations are absolutely worthless if they don’t as a minimum show at least one “closest” member of the training set.
You could set up a script that just randomly picked one out of 50 images of my closest family and no one would know the difference from going to it.
- BenjiWiebe 7y agoExcept for the occasional horrible creepy deformed things seen sometimes... Or is that your family too?
- boublepop 7y agoThe point is that you aren’t demonstrating the implied value in the generated content. Deformations and artifacts are easy to add to images. The concept here is that this is supposedly an image of someone who doesn’t exist, if what you see is just a test-set image that’s deformed or has an artifact added to make it look like it was automatically created then it’s not actually doing anything... but the point is that you have no frame of reference to judge that because you are only seeing the supposed non existing face. So it’s only impressive is you take it for granted that it’s doing what is claimed. It’s impressive if you assume it’s impressive. What I’m saying is simply that if they want to claim it’s impressive you should be able to judge that based on the displayed result itself. Just include the nearest match and it’s simple as hell for everyone to judge if it actually did something cool or not.